Pros of Redcarpet

• Faster performance, especially for large documents
• More extensive support for GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM)
• Written in C, allowing for better integration with Ruby through native extensions

Cons of Redcarpet

• Less actively maintained compared to Kramdown
• Fewer customization options for parsing and rendering
• Limited support for other markup languages beyond Markdown

Code Comparison

Kramdown:

require 'kramdown'

html = Kramdown::Document.new(markdown_text).to_html

Redcarpet:

require 'redcarpet'

markdown = Redcarpet::Markdown.new(Redcarpet::Render::HTML)
html = markdown.render(markdown_text)

Both Kramdown and Redcarpet are popular Markdown parsers for Ruby. Kramdown offers more flexibility and supports multiple input and output formats, making it suitable for complex documentation projects. It's also the default Markdown engine for Jekyll.

Redcarpet, on the other hand, focuses on speed and GitHub compatibility. It's a good choice for projects that require fast rendering of large Markdown documents or need precise GFM support.

The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, such as performance needs, desired customization options, and compatibility with other tools in the ecosystem.

Pros of CommonMark

• Aims to standardize Markdown syntax, reducing ambiguity and inconsistencies
• Extensive test suite with over 600 examples, ensuring robust implementation
• Widely adopted by major platforms like GitHub, Stack Overflow, and Reddit

Cons of CommonMark

• Less feature-rich compared to Kramdown, focusing on core Markdown elements
• May require additional extensions for advanced formatting options
• Slower development and update cycle due to its focus on standardization

Code Comparison

Kramdown:

require 'kramdown'

doc = Kramdown::Document.new('# Hello World')
puts doc.to_html

CommonMark:

const commonmark = require('commonmark');
const reader = new commonmark.Parser();
const writer = new commonmark.HtmlRenderer();

const parsed = reader.parse('# Hello World');
console.log(writer.render(parsed));

Key Differences

• Kramdown is primarily Ruby-based, while CommonMark has implementations in various languages
• Kramdown offers more built-in features like table of contents generation and syntax highlighting
• CommonMark focuses on creating a standard specification, while Kramdown prioritizes feature richness
• Kramdown has better support for extended syntax like definition lists and footnotes out of the box

Pros of markup

• Supports multiple markup languages (Markdown, reStructuredText, textile, etc.)
• Directly integrated with GitHub's rendering pipeline
• Actively maintained by GitHub, ensuring compatibility with their platform

Cons of markup

• Less feature-rich compared to kramdown's extensive Markdown capabilities
• Limited customization options for parsing and rendering
• Primarily focused on GitHub's use case, potentially less suitable for general-purpose applications

Code comparison

kramdown:

require 'kramdown'

html = Kramdown::Document.new(text).to_html

markup:

require 'github/markup'

html = GitHub::Markup.render('file.md', text)

Summary

kramdown is a pure-Ruby Markdown parser with extensive features and customization options, making it suitable for a wide range of applications. It offers more advanced Markdown parsing capabilities and greater control over the output.

markup, on the other hand, is designed specifically for GitHub's needs and supports multiple markup languages. It's more tightly integrated with GitHub's ecosystem but may be less flexible for general-purpose use.

Choose kramdown for advanced Markdown parsing and customization, or markup for GitHub-specific projects and multi-language markup support.

Pros of CommonMark

• Aims to standardize Markdown syntax, reducing ambiguity and inconsistencies
• Extensive test suite with over 600 examples, ensuring robust implementation
• Widely adopted by major platforms like GitHub, Stack Overflow, and Reddit

Cons of CommonMark

• Less feature-rich compared to Kramdown, focusing on core Markdown elements
• May require additional extensions for advanced formatting options
• Slower development and update cycle due to its focus on standardization

Code Comparison

Kramdown:

require 'kramdown'

doc = Kramdown::Document.new('# Hello World')
puts doc.to_html

CommonMark:

const commonmark = require('commonmark');
const reader = new commonmark.Parser();
const writer = new commonmark.HtmlRenderer();

const parsed = reader.parse('# Hello World');
console.log(writer.render(parsed));

Key Differences

• Kramdown is primarily Ruby-based, while CommonMark has implementations in various languages
• Kramdown offers more built-in features like table of contents generation and syntax highlighting
• CommonMark focuses on creating a standard specification, while Kramdown prioritizes feature richness
• Kramdown has better support for extended syntax like definition lists and footnotes out of the box